Re: [Cbor] Starting WGLC on draft-iet-cbor-sequence

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

Here is my WGLC review - and also a reminder that people need to, at a
minimum, say that they have no problems with the document.  The hope is to
close the WGLC before the next CBOR interim.

Jim


1.  Section 1: Should the introduction note the registration in the CBOR
content format registry as well?  I have no personal opinion on this.

2.  Section 2: I find the paragraph about delimiters slightly difficult to
read.  Something that might be better is:

CBOR Sequences, unlike JSON Text Sequences [], do not use a marker between
items.   This is because CBOR data items are self-delimiting and the end can
always be calculated.  This is no longer true for JSON as a simple value
such as an number is now a JSON document.

This reads slightly better in my opinion and also highlights why JSON is no
longer self-delimiting.

3.  Section2: In the second bullet under decode - would "deliver a sequence
of CBOR data model values" be better as "deliver one or more CBOR data model
values" ?  I don't have a personal opinion, I just wonder if avoiding
sequence is better in this context.